Re: PartyId and Context

[christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

I concur with David!

"Burdett, David" wrote:
> 
> Henry
> 
> I agree we have been through this loop once before in TRP. What is now
> happening is that other groups such as RegRep and TP are getting involved
> which is actually very good. I think that we should be able to come to
> resolution in a way which meets everyones needs soon. This will be good as
> there will then consistency across groups.
> 
> Regards
> 
> David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry Lowe [mailto:hlowe@omg.org]
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 6:30 AM
> To: Burdett, David
> Cc: 'Duane Nickull'; Christopher Ferris; Scott Hinkelman; Charlie
> Fineman; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: PartyId and Context
> 
> David,
> 
> Agree 100%.  But, as others have said, too, I thought we'd sorted
> this one out some while back.  In fact, I was a bit of a stick in
> the mud at the time as I wanted to ensure that a URI would handle
> a CORBA IOR (it will).
> 
> Best regards,
> Henry
> ------------------------------
> At 01:45 PM 12/15/2000 -0800, Burdett, David wrote:
> >Folks
> >
> >I do hope this doesn't become as long a thread as last time, but here goes.
> >What I want to do is show a number of examples that describe what I think
> we
> >should do and then ask for views on whether this makes sense.
> >
> >EXAMPLE 1
> >Consider this example:
> >
> ><From context=DUNS>45637284</From>
> >
> >What this means is that the number "45637284" belongs to the set of numbers
> >allocated by "David's Unique Numbering System". The problem I have is how
> do
> >you distinguish this from an **identical** From element where "DUNS" means
> >Dun & Bradstreets Numbering system? You can only do this if you now the
> >intention of the sender. Relying on the CPAId doesn't work since unless
> that
> >is also globally unique, then the number will be have been allocated by the
> >sender and you don't know who the sender is without looking at the CPA - a
> >circular argument.
> >
> >EXAMPLE 2
> >Consider this example:
> >
> ><From>urn:duns.com:id:45637284</From>
> >
> >What this means is that someone has registered the domain name "duns.com"
> as
> >well as a urn structure to go with . If we go to IANA, we can see who has
> >registered "duns.com" probably Dun & Bradsteet we then know **completely
> >unambiguously** who allocated the number and what it means and who it
> >identifies. "David" would not be able to validly use "duns.com" since it
> >would have already been "taken" by Dun & Bradstreet.
> >
> >EXAMPLE 3
> >Consider this example:
> >
> ><From usercontext=DUNS>45637284</From>
> >
> >If we define usercontext as meaning "a code that identifies a set of
> numbers
> >that have allocated or devised by a party" ... with the following
> >explanation ... "the values of usercontext are not necessarily unique. Two
> >or more parties may allocate the same value and associate it with different
> >sets of numbers. This means that sender or recipient of a message that
> >contains a usercontext, MUST be sure that a recipient of the message knows
> >unambiguously the party that is being identified. How this is done is
> >outside the scope of this spec".
> >
> >SUMMARY
> >What I propose is that we allow both example 2 and 3. Specifically:
> >1. If no usercontext is present then the content of the From (or To) must
> be
> >a URI.
> >2. If usercontext is present then the recipients of the message must be
> able
> >to unambiguously determine who sent the message by methods mutually agreed.
> >
> >Does this make sense?
> >
> >David
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
> >Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 12:23 PM
> >To: Christopher Ferris
> >Cc: Scott Hinkelman; Charlie Fineman; Burdett, David;
> >ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> >Subject: Re: PartyId and Context
> >
> >
> >All:
> >
> >I see problems arising with the use of one and one only method for
> >generating a Party ID.  We need to allow multiple schemes for
> >identifying parties.
> >
> >In the cases where multiple SME's are using a single ASP for a web based
> >onramp to the ebXML infrastructure, but they may wish to change ASP's or
> >eventually get their own system, this will not work.  When a company
> >looses their URI - do they loose their Party ID?
> >
> >URI's by themselves will not work.  They could be one such method for
> >uniquely identifying a party but not the end all and be all.
> >
> >Duane Nickull
begin:vcard 
n:Ferris;Christopher
tel;cell:508-667-0402
tel;work:781-442-3063
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc;XTC Advanced Development
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:chris.ferris@east.sun.com
title:Sr. Staff Engineer
fn:Christopher Ferris
end:vcard